Author Topic: Tough Sites (Read 7736 times)

tab62 · « **on:** April 11, 2011, 12:46 »

Hi Stock Folks,

Based on my very limited experience I've noticed that CRESTOCK and Graphicleftovers are very difficult to get accepted pics- The most poplar rejection reply is the following:

Image possibly infringes on copyright, trademark, or other intellectual property or privacy rights and cannot be sold as Royalty Free. Do not resubmit. Remote design

The items of the so-called trademark issues are not unique and there is no trade mark whatsoever- all the other sites have accepted them. Let's see if I submit a photo of a cup cake this company would say it a 'Hostess" cup thus a trade mark issues. Is this just me? The funny things (Actually not too funny) is that these companies are Low Earners - are they trying to prove a point? Maybe a small and up and coming company has to select only the best of the best to have a chance against the middle to upper tier companies- Quality over Quantity...

Tom

stockastic · « **Reply #1 on:** April 11, 2011, 12:52 »

The whole 'trademark' issue is murky, and different agencies will have different points of view. If you posted an example, I'm sure you'd get some usefull opinions here.

GL Reviewer · « **Reply #2 on:** April 11, 2011, 13:04 »

Quote from: tab62 on April 11, 2011, 12:46

Hi Stock Folks,

Based on my very limited experience I've noticed that CRESTOCK and Graphicleftovers are very difficult to get accepted pics- The most poplar rejection reply is the following:

Image possibly infringes on copyright, trademark, or other intellectual property or privacy rights and cannot be sold as Royalty Free. Do not resubmit. Remote design

The items of the so-called trademark issues are not unique and there is no trade mark whatsoever- all the other sites have accepted them. Let's see if I submit a photo of a cup cake this company would say it a 'Hostess" cup thus a trade mark issues. Is this just me? The funny things (Actually not too funny) is that these companies are Low Earners - are they trying to prove a point? Maybe a small and up and coming company has to select only the best of the best to have a chance against the middle to upper tier companies- Quality over Quantity...

Tom

The key fobs you sent in are proprietary intellectual property of the manufacturers. There are even car keys I won't take. Same with camera flashes, Gary Fong light domes. I also cannot take military insignia that could put any USA military branch in a position of promotion or endorsement. You might want to see our Restictions list for more info, which by the way, is in horrible need of an update

http://graphicleftovers.com/restrictions/

So when you say "no trademark whatsoever" you might want to rethink that.

And the Hostess chocolate cakes with the white icing scroll, you are right, I won't take them. These days, it's much more than removing a logo.

We're not trying to prove a point - we are doing what is right to protect buyers.

tab62 · « **Reply #3 on:** April 11, 2011, 14:01 »

Wow! Just read the GL Trademark page. An eye opener to say the least. Okay, now I have some concerns- if a photo is accepted and the manufacture or company deems it a trade mark violation and sues - who gets nailed to the cross? If the photographer is not corp business than they stand to lose everything to include their house and all assets. I am so new to this game and this scares the heck out of me now. A few months ago I submitted a photo of the 'Easy' Button (Staples) and it was accepted by one stock company and had several sales. One of the other stock companies told me that I better contact them and take it off the site ASAP which I did since it violated the trademark area- even if the Staples mark was removed.

Okay, it appears that many other products are trademarked by just the shape or pattern. I saw a photo of my Z350 on a stock site with sales that only the Nissan logo was removed- everyone knows it is a Z350 thus a trademark issue or concern to say the least. Now I am not sure I want to be in this business...

Tom

stockastic · « **Reply #4 on:** April 11, 2011, 14:09 »

Unfortunately you're likely to get conflicting opinions here.

As far as I know, the end user - i.e. buyer - of the photo is ultimately responsible for its proper use. But the microstock agencies clearly want to assure their users that the images they buy are 'safe' and some may make guarantees to that effect, meaning they're liable for legal costs if there's a suit.

In recent years, big companies (with big legal departments) have gone totally over the edge in asserting copyright on various visual aspects of their products, even including shapes and colors, and nonsense like the squiggle on the cupcake, and they've apparently been winning in court, or at least scaring people. In general, clearly recognizable products are a bad idea, even if they're somewhere in the background.

red · « **Reply #5 on:** April 11, 2011, 14:14 »

It seems you have jumped into this business (yes, it is a business) without doing your research. Information regarding trademarked items is available on every microstock site. Many have lists or a forum post about what is trademarked and shouldn't be uploaded. You really shouldn't join anything without reading the fine print, checking each page at each site for their how-to's, guidelines, FAQs, requirements, restrictions, payment policies and on and on. There are also many, many sites about selling stock photography that give this basic info. Just Google stock photography and read, read, read. This forum has many pointers and answers many questions if you just go back a year or 2. I think you need to slow down. No offense but saying a site is tough without knowing what you are referring to, or without posting a photo to illustrate your problem is not the way to go if you want help.

tab62 · « **Reply #6 on:** April 11, 2011, 14:17 »

The car keys and remote that are mention here have been sold by a few stock companies thus do I need to contact them asap and have the sales returned with the photos taken offsite? Kind of sucks since they have been my best sellers - go figure! I will have to keep up with all the trademark stuff to keep of the most wanted list...

luissantos84 · « **Reply #7 on:** April 11, 2011, 14:22 »

good laugh here!

come on, car keys don´t have trademark or such, you can reject whatever you want that´s for sure (thinking of buyers or other) but there is no issue on car keys!

stockastic · « **Reply #8 on:** April 11, 2011, 14:27 »

Quote from: tab62 on April 11, 2011, 14:17

The car keys and remote that are mention here have been sold by a few stock companies thus do I need to contact them asap and have the sales returned with the photos taken offsite?

No. We don't need to be that paranoid. Like I said, the buyer and the agency have the real liability.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #9 on:** April 11, 2011, 14:36 »

I'm pretty new to this but I would say that the sites themselves are not always consistent. You need a thick skin but I find Crestock's rejections often bordering on the insulting!!!

ShadySue · « **Reply #10 on:** April 11, 2011, 14:38 »

Quote from: tab62 on April 11, 2011, 14:17

The car keys and remote that are mention here have been sold by a few stock companies thus do I need to contact them asap and have the sales returned with the photos taken offsite? Kind of sucks since they have been my best sellers - go figure! I will have to keep up with all the trademark stuff to keep of the most wanted list...

Depneds on the terms of the companies. You seem to be submitting to many companies without being clear on the terms, conditions and modus operandi of each site. As stated above, read all the small print on all the sites you submit to. Write down the significant points and differences between them.
Some sites state clearly that the onus is on you (the supplier of images).
Other sites you just have to say whether you have a model release and/or a property release and the t&c clearly state that the end use is the responsibility of the buyer.
As others have said, don't try to run before you can crawl - you could fall over and get badly hurt.

tab62 · « **Reply #11 on:** April 11, 2011, 14:45 »

Yes, I do admit that I have rushed into this business- I am now reading all the fine print and seeing what each stock company is saying on trademark concerns. It appears that each company has different policies on this trademark area.

Okay, here a some of my photo items that clearly fall into the trademark issues-

1. Glock military pistol - even with Glock removed anyone who's knows about firearms knows it is a glock and even what model type
2. Calculators-
3. Cell Phones especially the Blackberry
4. Sun Glasses- Maui Jim's and Oakley
5. Car shots of my Z350
6. Money Shots - Paper money and coins
7. Laptops
8. Cameras
9. TV's

All of these items can be ID with or without their logos or trademark by anyone that knows their products.

tab62 · « **Reply #12 on:** April 11, 2011, 14:49 »

Now this is what I call a trademark concern-

http://us.fotolia.com/id/23218355

at least I removed the brand name and model number.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #13 on:** April 11, 2011, 15:07 »

laptops, cameras, tvs, calculators, cell phones don´t have trademark (ok remove the logo, it all depend on the picture, if it is a person using it there is no issue at all)

again every agency have different "rules", try it yourself and don´t go crazy on this!

tab62 · « **Reply #14 on:** April 11, 2011, 15:12 »

I feel I need to apologize to all- I blew a fuse (a tad) on my rejections. I am the one, not the stock companies or photo editors, to blame on my rejections. I have a lot to learn both technically and business wise before I should open my mouth! Reaching higher standards means being a better photographer and reading all the by-laws before firing away at anyone. The stock company is trying keep my backside out of trouble which I thank them and the other stock folks as well...

Tom

steheap · « **Reply #15 on:** April 11, 2011, 15:39 »

Tom

When I started this, I set up an LLC and that entity is the one that contracts with the stock companies and they all make payments to the LLC. I wrote a blog about it here:
http://www.backyardsilver.com/2011/02/how-can-i-sell-my-photos-and-get-some-money/

I'm no lawyer, but I believe that this puts one extra step between me personally and any liabilities and it was not difficult to do in Virginia. I then use this LLC for all income and expenses as well - which then passes on the profit (or loss) to me personally.

Having said that - I have given up with Crestock - I've been with them for 3 years and have earned a total of $25 in that time. Sometimes I have uploaded 150 images and they have rejected everyone - it is such a pain for such a small amount of money and it isn't worth beating myself up about.

Steve

pancaketom · « **Reply #16 on:** April 11, 2011, 15:45 »

For the most part, everything that isn't grown or found on the ground was made by someone and has the potential for problems. In fact I know of at least one site that says you can't submit a picture of a rock that is over a million years old. I am a rock climber, and I could tell you the manufacturer of most of the gear in the rock climbing pictures at the sites. I am sure a gun collector could id most of the firearms, same for cars, computers, cell phones, stuffed animals... even with any logos removed. Apparently those aren't really a problem because nobody has been sued - yet.

Most sites put the burden on the buyers and on the photographers. The just want to cover their ass-ets.

That said, some companies are known for going after users of images of their product - apple, various car manufacturers, etc.

If a site doesn't want something, they don't have to accept it. Sometimes it makes sense, sometimes it doesn't. Their sandbox, their rules.

Many things are rejected now that were accepted in the past, some are good sellers. Some sites have gone back and removed them, others haven't.

This can be a weird business we are in. It does take a thick skin sometimes.

tab62 · « **Reply #17 on:** April 11, 2011, 15:48 »

I am going to to the LLC thing- another friend of mine told me the same thing. I have rental properties, a good paying job plus some decent stock inventories thus the last thing I need to have happen to me is to be sued for an object that I made $.25 sale on. Living in the Seattle area I now one particular company that has corp lawyers seating idle ready to pound anyone that violates their contracts. Every business has it red tape such as I know working for the federal govt...

visceralimage · « **Reply #18 on:** April 11, 2011, 16:04 »

Tom

I am not sure the LLC is going to help; corps. will only protect you for mistakes, many lawyers will classify this mistake as willful negligence because of your clear failure to read the fine print.

Corps are a pain in the back side, filing tax documents, filing corp. papers, etc. Better to take a step back and shoot more, submit less until you learn a bit more and read more of the fine print.

All that being said, I have heard GL is a bit more aggressive with rejections of logo/TM issues than others; I do not have a problem with their position; I have never had logo/TM issues.

GL Reviewer · « **Reply #19 on:** April 11, 2011, 16:16 »

Tom

Stockastic and Pancake Tom said it best. I have sent you a couple of emails to ponder.

BTW Welcome to GL Pancake

tab62 · « **Reply #20 on:** April 11, 2011, 16:34 »

Thank you all! Did I get an education today! Never a boring day in this stock world for sure...

Tom

sharpshot · « **Reply #21 on:** April 11, 2011, 16:42 »

Does anyone know if a microstock contributor has bee sued for selling a photo of something they shouldn't of? I can understand the sites being cautious, I just really think it should be down to the buyer to make sure the images they are using are OK. We earn so little for most sales with microstock, can you imagine a court case over an image that made the contributor 30 cents?

red · « **Reply #22 on:** April 11, 2011, 16:54 »

http://www.petapixel.com/2010/02/03/public-art-lands-photog-in-hot-water/

Public Art Lands Photog in Hot Water

In February 2008, Seattle-based photographer Mike Hipple received a letter from the lawyers of sculptor Jack Mackie that one of his stock photographs infringed upon Mackie’s copyright. The photograph includes a portion of Mackie’s “Dance Steps on Broadway”, a public art piece created in 1979 with public funds.

Though the stock agency complied immediately with Mackie’s demands by removing the image and providing a settlement, Mackie is now suing Hipple for “copyright infringement and claiming the full measure of statutory damages, possibly $60,000 or more.”

Right or wrong, the stock agency didn't take liability past removing the image and paying some money.

steheap · « **Reply #23 on:** April 11, 2011, 16:54 »

My only experience is the recent discussions I had with the owner of the copyright of the Grand Arche in Paris. It was a very pleasant interaction - I've provided a summary of the sales I made, as it was only $39 they are not going to charge their normal 50% commission, and I have agreed to take down the few images I had. No need for lawyers - I admitted I didn't know about their copyright and we reached an amicable conclusion.

On the LLC - it was only $50 to set it up in Virginia, and yes, I do file taxes for it, but I also put rental income and some consultancy through it as well.

Steve

sharpshot · « **Reply #24 on:** April 11, 2011, 17:13 »

Quote from: cuppacoffee on April 11, 2011, 16:54

http://www.petapixel.com/2010/02/03/public-art-lands-photog-in-hot-water/

Public Art Lands Photog in Hot Water

In February 2008, Seattle-based photographer Mike Hipple received a letter from the lawyers of sculptor Jack Mackie that one of his stock photographs infringed upon Mackie’s copyright. The photograph includes a portion of Mackie’s “Dance Steps on Broadway”, a public art piece created in 1979 with public funds.

Though the stock agency complied immediately with Mackie’s demands by removing the image and providing a settlement, Mackie is now suing Hipple for “copyright infringement and claiming the full measure of statutory damages, possibly $60,000 or more.”

Right or wrong, the stock agency didn't take liability past removing the image and paying some money.

That's interesting, looks like that case is still ongoing http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=1801

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Tough Sites (Read 7736 times)

tab62

stockastic

GL Reviewer

tab62

stockastic

red

tab62

luissantos84

stockastic

Pauws99

ShadySue

tab62

tab62

luissantos84

tab62

steheap

pancaketom

tab62

visceralimage

GL Reviewer

tab62

sharpshot

red

steheap

sharpshot

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors